Latest drug addict loons.

[ladajo]

It merely proves that poor people are more likely to be arrested and therefore more likely to be convicted and encarcerated than affluent people, not that there is no racial bias.

No, the charts together show that poor non-contributors are more likely to get arrested.

even that doesn't consider the role of racism in making/keeping you poor in the 1st place.

Being poor and a non-contributor in this country is a choice, it has nothing to do with racism. You are living in the past.

There are 224million whites and 39 million black; According to one of your charts 28% of blacks are below poverty line (.28X39= 11 million blacks) 10% whites (.10X 224= 22.4 million white). Given similiar usage rates for these poor, there should be more than two whites sitting in jail for pot possesion for every black sitting in jail for the same.

I was hoping you would take that bait. Again you miss the point. What demographic is below the poverty line and chooses more so to try and make a go of it and work? What demographic is below the poverty line and does not generally try and gets by on entitlements?

If you look this up you will understand the total point.

It is not about race. That is a red herring provided by those who wish to buy votes with entitilement spending, and those who wish to be bought with entitlement spending.

Look where the majority of drug arrests occur. They are inner city subsidized housing zones, and they are more often of folks that are not fully employed, and who have prior records (for various offenses). So which demographic lives mostly in urban area subsidized housing and is not fully employed?

Grow up. It is not about race.

[williatw]

No, the charts together show that poor non-contributors are more likely to get arrested.

So the pot smoking poor whites below the poverty line aren't getting jailed because they may be poor, but they’re not "non-contributors" that's what get the poor blacks arrested in greater numbers not the poverty? More pot smoking whites are on welfare/food stamps than blacks, yet they somehow still don't get jailed at the same rate.

Being poor and a non-contributor in this country is a choice, it has nothing to do with racism. You are living in the past..

So..if an 18yr old poor black get arrested for pot possession and convicted & jailed, well he chose it so he deserved it..if the same 18 yr old poor white for the same offense gets probation/rehab no criminal conviction, well that's beside the point you shouldn't have had the pot in the first place so you still deserve it. A conviction jail time that hangs over the black kid's head for the rest of his life, that the white kid effectively skirts for same offense.

There are 224million whites and 39 million black; According to one of your charts 28% of blacks are below poverty line (.28X39= 11 million blacks) 10% whites (.10X 224= 22.4 million white). Given similar usage rates for these poor, there should be more than two whites sitting in jail for pot possession for every black sitting in jail for the same.

I was hoping you would take that bait. Again you miss the point. What demographic is below the poverty line and chooses more so to try and make a go of it and work? What demographic is below the poverty line and does not generally try and gets by on entitlements?

If you look this up you will understand the total point.

It is not about race. That is a red herring provided by those who wish to buy votes with entitlement spending, and those who wish to be bought with entitlement spending.

Look where the majority of drug arrests occur. They are inner city subsidized housing zones, and they are more often of folks that are not fully employed, and who have prior records (for various offenses). So which demographic lives mostly in urban area subsidized housing and is not fully employed?

Grow up. It is not about race.

Of course more arrests occur there than in enclaves of poor whites like trailer parks (many of whom also collect welfare/food stamps); that's my point, the black poor are disproportionally targeted for arrest/conviction/jail over even poor whites guilty of the same excuse, pot possession. The simple fact is that the idea of "pot smoking" blacks on welfare living off of your tax dollars simply incenses you (and many others) far more than the greater number of pot smoking welfare whites doing the same does, and the arrest/incarceration rates in this country reflect that. That and the fear of scary young black men, anything that locks them up is a good thing, few questions asked.

[GIThruster]

. . .if the same 18 yr old poor white for the same offense gets probation/rehab no criminal conviction, well that's beside the point you shouldn't have had the pot in the first place so you still deserve it. A conviction jail time that hangs over the black kid's head for the rest of his life, that the white kid effectively skirts for same offense.

There's no one here who would not agree if you can site some statistical demonstration of this injustice, it is an injustice, but you have not done this. You are posing an hypothetical and pretending it supports your conclusion.

I think I know the folks here well enough that I can generalize to say we all would stand against this injustice you continually trot out if indeed that's what the facts are, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate this as fact. Apart from all your posturing, we'd like to see why you hold this very racist view. You keep claiming this terrible injustice. You have yet however to show that race is the only relevant distinction between who gets incarcerated and why. Let me give you an example of the kind of correlation I wonder about.

Lets suppose for example, that inner city Black kids generally choose to get high smoking joints on the street, but suburban White kids choose to get high smoking bongs in their back yards. This could be a simple cultural pattern with no significance beyond what behaviors were passed on for almost arbitrary reasons, and the existence of/access to back yards. It stands to reason, that kids smoking joints in public, around a basketball court will have a higher arrest rate than kids smoking dope in their back yards.

This is just one small example of the point I've been making that you are not supplying any facts to these cases. All you're doing is stating enforcement is racially biased. You are assuming a conclusion. With no real data on arrest and conviction details, you cannot assume any conclusion, even if it suits your personal bias.

I live in a completely integrated neighborhood. One cannot imagine any neighborhood more integrated than mine, and the guys all pal around regardless of race (and age). I play cards several nights each week in a group that is about 50/50 mix and we're all good friends. Despite this I can tell you, there are significant cultural practices between us. Integration and a shared culture does not enculturate us individually. We still each individually hold specific sub-cultural behavior patterns that make it possible to distinguish by race with a blindfold on. Given this sort of thing, it is impossible to conclude law enforcement is biased without details of that enforcement. You need to stop beating that same old drum just because you think it leads to your conclusion. It does not.

[ladajo]

Dude, you have totally bought into the propaganda machine.

You just don't get it.

I'll make it REALLY simple.

If you get in front of a Judge and you are less than fully employed, on government entitlements and you have been in court before, the odds are that you are going to get hammered.

So, now we take it out of the courts and into society.

Now you are in front of a cop, and you are less than fully employed, on government entitlements and you have been rolled up by the police before, the odds are that you are going to get rolled up again.

So, now we ask, where do we normally find the less than fully employed, on government entitlements and been to court or arrested before folks living?
Well we find them mostly in the urban subsidized housing. And unfortunately, which demographic is the majority resident of these areas? And who, additionally, unfortunately stacked the deck for this situation by demanding "entitlements" and "rights" and getting exactly what they asked for and voted for?

It is not about race. It is about the struggle between culture, choice and motivation. The same dynamic happens in certain micro-societies as it does macro and it happens independently of race. It just so happens that in our nation, this dynamic was more ripe for one race group over others during the last 60 years. Ironically you can find the same dynamics for shades of white in the 19th century immigrant cultures. But apparently you are thin on sociological studies as well as analysis.

You don't get it. You must be young. You sure sound young.
It is not about race, it is about the person and circumstance. Figure it out. Stop being so narrow in your view and attempts to analyze.

[williatw]

I'll make it REALLY simple.

Here I will make it simple for you, though probably not simple enough:

Deputy drug czar reluctantly admits marijuana is less deadly than alcohol



The deputy director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy admitted Tuesday that marijuana was less deadly than alcohol, but insisted that pot was not a benign drug.

At a House Oversight Committee hearing, the drug czar’s second-in-command, Michael Botticelli, received a stern questioning from Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) about the harms of marijuana in light of President Barack Obama recent comments on the subject.

“How many people die from marijuana overdoses every year?” Connolly asked.

“I don’t know that I know. It is very rare,” Botticelli replied.

“Very rare. Now just contrast that with prescription drugs, unintentional deaths from prescription drugs, one American dies every 19 minutes,” Connolly said. “Nothing comparable to marijuana. Is that correct?”

Botticelli admitted that was true.

“Alcohol — hundreds of thousands of people die every year from alcohol related deaths: automobile [accidents], liver disease, esophageal cancer, blood poisoning,” Connolly continued. “Is that incorrect?”

But Botticelli refused to answer. Guessing where the line of questioning was headed, he said the “totality of harm” associated with marijuana indicated it was a dangerous drug, even though it was not associated with deaths.

“I guess I’m sticking with the president — the head of your administration — who is making a different point,” Connolly fired back. ”He is making a point that is empirically true. That isn’t a normative statement, that marijuana is good or bad, but he was contrasting it with alcohol and empirically he is correct, is he not?”

Botticelli again tried to dodge the question, but Connolly interrupted him and told him to answer.

“Is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing comparable with marijuana?” Connolly asked. ”And I’m not saying it is good or bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol, other hard drugs are certainly — even prescription drugs — are a threat to public health in a way that just isolated marijuana is not. Isn’t that a scientific fact? Or do you dispute that fact?”

“I don’t dispute that fact,” Botticelli said.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/04/d ... n-alcohol/

The only thing that will break your love affair with the WOD, other than demographic change, would of course be assett Forfeiture, may it continue until sense finally reigns. 800K arrest a year for something less harmful by an order of magnitude than alcohol.

[GIThruster]

. . .for something less harmful by an order of magnitude than alcohol.

Not only is this anecdotal, but you are equivocating. He didn't say pot is less harmful. He said it is less deadly. Death is not amongst the most prevalent forms of harm that drugs do. Your argument makes no sense.

[ladajo]

I'll make it really simple again.

You make absolutely no sense here. This is babble from an angry man (boy?). The line of questioning by the D-VA senator was clearly a red herring attempt to put a band aid on the President for saying stupid shit. He knew full well he was sound biting based on specific legal interpretations. You are niave.

The only thing that will break your love affair with the WOD, other than demographic change, would of course be assett Forfeiture, may it continue until sense finally reigns. 800K arrest a year for something less harmful by an order of magnitude than alcohol.

Here try this on your attempted thesis, it is what your President really thinks:

An ONDCP analysis of 2009 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) census, which shows that roughly one in four (23 percent) of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for drugs were under the age of 25. Additionally, based on data from 2005 to 2009, almost half (42 percent) of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were under the age of 25.

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, contains a number of variables to describe drug involvement for those in fatal crashes. Overall, 3,952 fatally injured drivers tested positive for drug involvement in 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugged-driving

Data for 2011 show that alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 grams per deciliter or greater) declined 2.5% from 10,136 alcohol-impaired driving deaths in 2010 to 9,878 such deaths in 2011. Alcohol-impaired fatalities represented 31% of the total driving fatalities in 2011 (2011 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013). Data from 2009 show that 3,952 fatally injured drivers tested positive for drug involvement. This number represents 18% of all fatally injured drivers and 33% of those with known drug test results in 2009. Note: interpretation of these data must be done with caution (Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2011).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/impaireddriving/

You are throwing random stones hoping to hit something.

Here is my SIMPLE list again, as it seems you have missed it over and over and over and...

1. I do not support police states.

2. I do not like the "WOD". But I do not currently have or see a better answer.

3. I think drugs are bad. Some will kill you , some will just ruin your life. All at the expense of others (which is a crime, just like stealing)

4. Our society can not afford more government spending to support life dodger's attempts to exist without contributing. Legalizing drugs would open up another layer of expense and resource expenditures to the contributors, and in addition the extreme potential for increasing expense and resource costs as time goes on and drug use becomes "acceptable" instead of now where it resides, "unacceptable".

By the way, if you bother to look it up (which I doubt), you would find the drug related traffic incidents are on the rise. The reason being two fold, one they are now tracking it, two it is becoming more acceptable in the minds of the young as they buy into pro-drug campaigning. It would be fair to atrribute each of these fatalities that had pot involved as a pot related death. But you don't want to do that because it goes against the 'narrative' you have bought into. Pot is safe, drugs are safe, nobody dies, victimless crime...

When your family gets wiped out by a high driver, are you going to change your opinion?

After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC.

A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when THC was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable.

Other drugs commonly implicated in accidents include opiates, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, and cocaine. For instance, in a 2003 study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Maryland shock trauma center, drugs other than alcohol were present in more than half of the cases. These included marijuana (26.9 percent), cocaine (11.6 percent), benzodiazepines (11.2 percent), and opiates and other prescription drugs (10.2 percent). A quarter of the cases involved both alcohol and other drugs.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/d ... ed-driving

[paperburn1]

Another demographic that is not used but makes a huge difference is population. If you live in a city under 200,000 people or over 200,000 people has a huge impact on crime, and drug use in the city. When broken down in N X per Y units. Living in the city is Very Dangerous.

[Diogenes]

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled

SEATTLE (CBS Seattle) – According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.

“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/ ... e-tripled/



Nonsense! Freedom!

[williatw]

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled
SEATTLE (CBS Seattle) – According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.

“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.
Nonsense! Freedom!

Curiously...arresting/charging/convicting/jailing/ up to 800K a year of mostly young urban minority males, a goodly percentage of which probably don't even own cars, has had little effect on these spiking upwards of fatal car crashes doubtlessly involving primarily middle/upper middle class white pot smokers.

[GIThruster]

What does it matter? Why do you keep making this about race. Drugs cause car crashes. I lost 7 classmates to drug caused crashes before I got out of high school. Think of all the harm done to all those families--probably at least 50 people's lives irrevocably changed forever. And you say this stuff doesn't cause harm? Are you mad?

[williatw]

What does it matter? Why do you keep making this about race. Drugs cause car crashes. I lost 7 classmates to drug caused crashes before I got out of high school. Think of all the harm done to all those families--probably at least 50 people's lives irrevocably changed forever. And you say this stuff doesn't cause harm? Are you mad?

Who says it doesn't cause harm? The question is like in the case of alcohol prohibition is the WOD effective relative to its societal cost? The point was that jailing a small ethnically select minority group of pot smoking people will have little effect on the habits of the vast majority of the majority pot smoking ethnic group not being arrested/convicted/jailed, hard to see how logically one would expect it would. In the links D posted it is clear that legal alcohol is still the heavy weight champ when it comes to causing these tragedies, and I have lost people I knew to drunk driving/drivers myself.

[williatw]

What does it matter? Why do you keep making this about race. Drugs cause car crashes. I lost 7 classmates to drug caused crashes before I got out of high school. Think of all the harm done to all those families--probably at least 50 people's lives irrevocably changed forever. And you say this stuff doesn't cause harm? Are you mad?

Ethan Couch, 'Affluenza' Teen Who Killed 4 In Crash, Given No Jail Time

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A judge has ordered no jail time for a Texas teenager in a drunken-driving crash that killed four people.

Ethan Couch was given probation last year for the wreck. He was back in court Wednesday after prosecutors requested 20 years in jail on charges related to two injured people.

The hearing was closed to the public. Defense attorney Reagan Wynn told reporters afterward that Judge Jean Boyd ordered the teen to be sent to a rehabilitation facility paid for by his parents.

The judge didn't identify the facility. However, the family previously offered to pay for a $450,000-a-year center in California.

The sentence has stirred debate, as has a defense expert who says Couch's wealthy parents coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility. The expert termed the condition "affluenza."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/0 ... 29821.html

[paperburn1]

so much for peace love and hair grease.
Now the crime rate is up becuase of pot.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal- ... ops-n20111

[paperburn1]

And why doen't any body talk about how bad it is when you mix the two together( pot and drink)